Re: ...Real Issue with Islam

I find it interesting that the The American Thinker takes the view that

While it is important to note that moderate Muslims do exist, it is imperative that we keep that fact within the proper global context. Amanpour and liberal pundits the world over can host hundreds of panels comprised of thousands of Muslims that have embraced Western culture, and that will not change the fact that such voices are irrelevant in the Islamic world.

I hate that they always proclaim that radical islam is a "small" minority.

Yet govern in some countries and can fill the streets over cartoons in others.

they may be less than 50%, but they are by no means a small fraction of what is an enormous worldwide population.

While Mr. McIntyre's commentary on Christmas was clearly intended as sarcasm, he may be surprised at how many Christians actually agree with him.

Hmm. Um. Here, have some links...

Christopher Hitchens: Tumortown

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

The Audacity of Pope

Re: Stricter labeling for Green products.

So, Norm, what do you think about this demand for third party certification of Green claims on labels?

Do you support it?

Does it occur to anyone else that 'voluntary labeling', is, by virtue of this action, unmasked as a crock?

Might this harbinger a ruling that products manufactured from roundup ready GE soybeans, corn,sugar beets, etc. might ought have a third party certified label identifying that too?

I just finished my annual Organic Certification on-site audit. For 4 hours, the inspector toured the ranch, reviewing shade cover in pastures for livestock, water quality maintenance (are cattle fenced off from the creek?), wildlife refuges (hedge rows), chicken confinement logs, cattle health records, planting logs, fertilizer and feed receipts, organic certificates for all of my suppliers. She reviewed the produce handling and storage facilities, and reviewed the farm's Organic Systems Plan, to insure that it still corresponds to what she verified on site. And so, for another year, I might proudly label my food as Certified Organic.

Truth in labeling can be done, ought be done, must be done, else the notion that we have Freedom of choice in this country is but a foolish fancy.

re: Tim, ...real issue with Islam

"they seem do so with the smug presumption that exactly the same thing is not happening within Christianity."

yup. I noted with interest that President Packer's homophobic bigotry displayed at the LDS General Conference last week has been "edited for clarity" by church PR folk. Some hopefuls are comforted by that 'progress'. Others find troubling the merest implication that perhaps, just maybe, he might have been speaking as a man rather than channeling the wisdom of the Lord.

Thanks for the link across to our blog. I hadn't come across onegoodmove before, it's an interesting blog you've got here.

It never fails to surprise me how groups pushing different anti-science agendas, be they anti-vaccine, AGW deniers, or animal rights extremists, use the same smear tactics...and how often journalists fall for their tricks. One can only keep pointing out their distortions and misrepresentaations and hope that reason will prevail.

I am not sure in what spirit the American Thinker article was posted here? Is it an ironic reference to the insipid stupidity on that site? Or an endorsement of the article's valiant assault on religion?

For the readership of this blog- which is likely largely atheist- the article provides yet another example of the contradictions, and even the potential evil inherent in religion. But we all know that.

What we don't always seem to know, is that Islam is not, just as Judaism or Christianity are not, some sinister bogeyman. It is a collection of people duped into believing something. Nothing sinister about that, but just like obesity or gambling, we have some cultural problems.

It is very easy for an article to be factually correct (mostly), yet steeped in prejudice and hatred. The author of this article is invested in demonstrating how different muslims are, and how dangerous. It is certainly disingenuous to present Islamic fundamentalism as though a fundamentalist read of the bible would be any different (which also values conquering all humanity of course) Look no further than the comments on the article at American Thinker to get a feel for the emotional nature of the argument presented.

This is reminiscent to me of earlier times when thinkers would justify the hatred of other races by studies showing the deficiencies of their culture, their higher rates of crime, their inferior intelligence, their different head sizes, etc. We now know of course, what bunk this is. Biological racial differences are either non-existent or absolutely dwarfed by environmental conditions creating the individual.

Similarly, my opinion is that differences between religions are absolutely dwarfed by on the on hand, the difference between religion and science, and on the other the differences between individuals within a given religion.

This article is disturbing because it chooses to ignore this, and instead marshals all effort towards hatred of Islam.